Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3443 »

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

VitalSigns posted:

It's not that weird. The Cherokee fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War for the quite understandable reasons that they (1) loving hated the US federal government, and (2) figured that splitting the USA would make it harder for them to steal the Oklahoma territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie

Huh. I did not know that. Guess there were good Confederates.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 06:28

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Sir Tonk posted:

Look, Cowger is a serious conservative activist. I'll bet he even uses the Conservative Web Browser.

on him violating some open source's GPL to make this

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:08

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Huh. I did not know that. Guess there were good Confederates.

Some even became martyrs for the cause of freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Parsons

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:11

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

VitalSigns posted:

It's not that weird. The Cherokee fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War for the quite understandable reasons that they (1) loving hated the US federal government, and (2) figured that splitting the USA would make it harder for them to steal the Oklahoma territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie

That makes a bit more sense.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:12

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

Hazo posted:

I moved away in 2009 and the rest of my family is still there. At that point, a ton of national groups were talking about laying roots in Indianapolis (NCAA, NFL camps, DCI, BOA, Gamer conventions, the loving Super Bowl) because of the good location as well as the surge in tax revenue and infrastructure (Indianapolis is a generally well-maintained and gridded city). Most of those plans ended up panning out, which is great because downtown Indy owns a lot. Daniels was still in charge and again, dude was a hard right conservative but now Pence is being enough of a bigoted shithead to put him to shame and drive out all those valuable groups. I'm ashamed to share the same undergrad alma mater.

I love Indy (see avatar) and Indiana as a whole.

Just I'm still amazed that this stuff still happens though considering the broader context and overall impact. Shouldn't the money coming from major corporations, major events and other things related to not alienating those things be greater than the money from some jerkass "Family Association" funded by hicks, lunatics and douche bags?

It's still a mystery why the GOP has yet to ditch that plank and let those people gently caress off to create their own party.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:18

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

FuzzySkinner posted:

I love Indy (see avatar) and Indiana as a whole.

Just I'm still amazed that this stuff still happens though considering the broader context and overall impact. Shouldn't the money coming from major corporations, major events and other things related to not alienating those things be greater than the money from some jerkass "Family Association" funded by hicks, lunatics and douche bags?

It's still a mystery why the GOP has yet to ditch that plank and let those people gently caress off to create their own party.

A political organization that runs on score, spite, and pettiness cutting off its most scornful, spiteful, and petty segment is just asking for trouble. If they wanted to make up for the loss of voters that that would bring, they would have to either adopt positions they clearly don't want to have, or try to rebrand what they already have and deal with the loony bin gleefully celebrating how many positions they have in common. That and you're cutting off the wing of the party that's most likely to have a criminal response to that (death threats, etc.). If we assume the GOP even wants the hee-haw crowd gone, they're probably just waiting for them to die out, leave on their own, or get crushed into nothing by culture war inertia.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:44

Dr. VooDoo: May 4, 2006

FuzzySkinner posted:

It's still a mystery why the GOP has yet to ditch that plank and let those people gently caress off to create their own party.

Because they can't. The GOP is losing ground because of all the bullshit and hate it preaches. So it continues to try to shift more and more to the right to pick up little niche groups here and there. It's why they lost the last two presidential elections and why they'll lose again in 2016. In order to win in the primaries their canidates have to spout really vile bullshit and bigotry to rally their main bases behind them (born again Christians, tea party, hard right conservatives, insane race war prepers) but when it comes time for wooing the main stream they fall apart because they try to shift into more moderate positions but are stuck trying to do that and not drive away their insane base

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:53

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

The GoP knows they have to ditch the religious-right and the apocalypse cultists and start relying purely on gently caress-the-poor sentiment, which is why they are now pretending to tolerate libertarians.

they just have not figured out how to execute this yet.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 05:57

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

FuzzySkinner posted:

I love Indy (see avatar) and Indiana as a whole.

Just I'm still amazed that this stuff still happens though considering the broader context and overall impact. Shouldn't the money coming from major corporations, major events and other things related to not alienating those things be greater than the money from some jerkass "Family Association" funded by hicks, lunatics and douche bags?

It's still a mystery why the GOP has yet to ditch that plank and let those people gently caress off to create their own party.

It's not like there's some king of the GOP that can dictate policy stances. The conservatives can't just decide to jettison the conservatives from the party. Those planks that are dragging them down nationally ARE the party.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 06:00

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

Well on a related note, do you feel that those planks have pushed a lot of business friendly types away?

It feels like the libertarian movement and the democratic party have both picked up steam in that regard.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 06:41

beatlegs: Mar 11, 2001

The right lost it after Obama was elected in '08. It's kind of the same phenomenon that happened when people went bonkers after 9/11. They can't banish the nuts because the nuts have become the party. They are unified in their seething resentment over being violated by Obama's victories, and they will not rest until they have vengeance. If that means abandoning every principle their movement once valued, so be it.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 06:45

kik2dagroin: Mar 23, 2007; Use the anger. Use it.

quote:

RUSH: Once again, ladies and gentlemen, your host is being blamed partially or totally for the lack of compromise in Washington, DC. Last night on some website -- and Larry King now has a show. The name of the website is Ora.TV. That's where Larry King is hanging out, and he had Barney Frank as his guest, the former congressman from Massachusetts, and Larry King said, "The art compromise is dead, Barney, what happened to it?"

FRANK: Part of it is the ideological rigidity of this Tea Party group. But there�s another factor. They live in parallel media universes. The left is over here listening to their programs, MSNBC or The Huffington Post, the right�s watching Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. If you are trying to compromise with the other side, your supporters say to you, "Why are you giving in?" And you say, "Well we don't have the votes to do what we want." And they say, "Oh, how can you say that? Everybody I know agrees with us." People on the left and all the people on the right, they only talk to people and hear from people who reinforce them. So if somebody from their position says, "You know we need to work with the others," they see it as a betrayal, because they believe they're in the majority

RUSH: I understand why Barney Frank thinks that. It's a popular misconception of people on the left, because they don't listen to us. They don't know what we believe. They think they do, but they have never endeavored to really understand it. They've tabbed it as extremism. See, the left, if you can understand this -- and this is true -- the left thinks that we are ideological. They aren't. Liberalism to them is not an ideology. Liberalism is just what is. They call themselves pragmatists. They think that they look at things issue by issue and decide based on what's best, and they think they'll go along with anything as long as it's best.

But they discount totally and automatically conservatism cause there's no pragmatism there. It's all ideology, in their mind, and therefore it's disqualified. Ideologues are extremists, they're wackos, in their view, and they don't see them that way. Now, you who listen to this program know that what Barney Frank just said may apply to some, but not to me. You learn more about liberalism on this program than you will watching MSNBC. You will see the examples of liberalism on MSNBC. You will see the examples of liberalism on CNN, or you'll read liberalism in the New York Times, the Washington Post, but nowhere do they explain themselves.

Only on this program I am able to give you the liberal position, any issue you want. I'm able to not only tell you what their position is gonna be, I'm able to tell you why. I'm able to explain the way they arrive at their conclusions. I know them as well as they know themselves, but they haven't the slightest idea, for example, who I really am or who any conservative really is because it's beneath them to try to find out.

This idea that -- they have a point here, in a way. In their world was hunky-dory up until 1988. They had a monopoly on everything. They had a monopoly on what was news. They had a monopoly on what wasn't news. They had a monopoly on what the commentary of the news was. There wasn't any national conservative media. National Review, maybe, a magazine here or there, but certainly in broadcast media there was zilch, zero, nada.

And then quite innocently in 1988, along came the EIB Network, and then a couple, three years later other talk show hosts sprang up. Then in 1996 here came Fox News, and that blew up their monopoly, and that blew up their worlds. They had never had to compete. They owned it, they dominated, they had a monopoly. Now they have to compete, and so they've decided that rather than anything involving them be problematic, what has happened instead is that people like me have come along and have succeeded in destroying compromise by dividing the country. We have made it overtly and overly partisan, and the people like you who listen to this program only listen to this program, in their view, and you do not know what they think.

That's the flaw, you see. You don't have to listen to them because I tell you. You don't have to watch MSNBC because you know, 'cause you listen to this program, you know as much about liberalism as you can stomach when I explain it to you here. So your decisions that you agree with or the decisions that you make are the result of your own independent thought. You're not mind-numbed robots, and you are not purposely avoiding compromise.

It's the other side that won't compromise. The other side defines compromise as us giving in. They're the pragmatists. They're never wrong. We're the ideologues. We're always the extremists. But it is all rooted, folks, this perplexity that they have over the fact that there's no compromise anymore, they blame me. You've heard it before I don't know how many times.

How many Republicans in Congress are supposedly afraid to disagree with me? And that leads them to never compromising, and it's therefore too partisan and it's all because of conservative media. Everything was just fine when there wasn't a conservative media and the Republicans had 120 members in the House, and half of them never showed up day to day. That was just great. But now it's a whole different thing.
...
They're the ones so close-minded. They're the ones that don't want to live next door to Republicans. They're the ones that don't want conservatives on campus. They are the ones that are exclusionary. It's fascinating to me. They blame everything on us, and this is why TIME Magazine back in 1995 had that cover story on me, "Is Rush Limbaugh Bad for Democracy?" And of course we're not a democracy. That's a faux pas anyway. Democracy does not equate to individual liberty and freedom, but the word is thrown around as though it does.

One more Barney Frank sound bite. Larry King, after Barney's answer about why all the partisanship and why the lack of compromise because of watching Fox News, King said, "What do you make of the Tea Party there, Barney?"

FRANK: I wish some of my liberal friends were more like them. They are a very disciplined group. They have their views and they go out there and fight for them. I told some of the people in the Occupy Movement, the difference was that the Tea Party people were serious about politics and the Occupy people were having a good time emotionally, having demonstrations and cheering. The Tea Party people were organizing and voting.

RUSH: Well, the Tea Party people are real. The Tea Party people are mom-and-pop citizens that sprang up out of anger and fear over Obama's spending and Obamacare, any number of things. Occupy was a manufactured movement in reaction and in response to the Tea Party. It was totally made up. There was nothing genuine about it. They were just a bunch of people that were recruited to sit out there and pitch tents, cause trouble, engage in civil disobedience, and make it look like it was a bigger popular uprising on the left than the Tea Party was. But it was pure fake and phony, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roll.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/25/barney_frank_blames_your_host_for_the_death_of_compromise_in_washington

quote:

RUSH: Ted Cruz announced he's gonna run for president. As you know, he's pledging, if he's elected, to repeal Obamacare word-for-word. He's gonna just repeal the whole thing, and he's become known for, among many other things, that stance. So, he announces he's gonna run for president, and his wife, who is a very accomplished financial wizard at Goldman Sachs, announces that she's stepping aside temporarily from that job to join him in his quest for the presidency, the Republican Party nomination. She's gonna be out there on the campaign trail with him and so forth.

It turns out that the Cruz family got their health care from her employment at Goldman Sachs. So the moment she stepped down, and from what I understand, the value of the health care package at Goldman Sachs is about 20 grand. That's the value of the benefit, the health benefit that they provide to their masters of the universe there, and she was one of 'em. So now the Cruz family doesn't have health care, and that places them in jeopardy of being in violation of the law, because the law says you have to have Obamacare. You have to have insurance. If you don't have insurance, then you have to pay a fine. And I don't think somebody running for president wants to be on the list of people paying a fine.

The law is the law, whether you disagree with it or not, you've gotta have Obamacare. You've gotta have health insurance. One of the things Cruz is doing is illustrating this by going out and signing up. He said he's gonna go to HealthCare.gov and sign up. He's gonna find a policy and he's gonna get it, and he said if he qualifies for subsidies, he's not gonna take them. As anybody running for president would have to claim, "I am not going to accept anything in the form of subsidies. I'm not gonna have my fellow tax-paying citizens help me defray my costs." Even though that's what the law permits, couldn't very well do it.

Well, the Drive-Bys don't know what to do with this now because, on the one hand, here's the guy who has vowed to repeal the whole thing if he's elected president, signing up for it. They think he's a hypocrite. They think he has blown it with his base. They think that he is advocating now, whether he likes it or not, that he is making the case for Obamacare. They think that he has just disqualified himself, because after all of these months promising to get rid of it, what has he done? Why, he signed up for it.
...
[T]he conversation between Dana Bash and Ted Cruz continues. Every question that he gets from these people is accusatory. The contrast is amazing. Obama never gets an accusatory question, never, ever. In fact, did you see the other day Mrs. Clinton shows up somewhere -- I have the story in the Stack. I forget where it was. She showed up somewhere, it was an audience of journalists, and they gave her a standing ovation when the notion of her server came up.

Everybody, I remember last week and the week before there were people on our side, I got the e-mails from 'em, I talked to 'em out on the golf course, "Hey, we got Hillary now. This server business, she's not gonna be able to come back from that. Have you seen all these Drive-Bys jumping on her?" And I even pointed it out. It was amazing the number of Drive-By Media people that were jumping on Hillary over her server.

Well, what's happened is that she appears to have survived it. No damage. So she shows up somewhere where there's an audience of Drive-By Media types, she gets a standing O from journalists. Ted Cruz will never get a standing O from journalists. Everything they ask him is accusatory. He's the continuation of the Obamacare bite he was having with Dana Bash.

BASH: The irony is just kind of unbelievable, that you have made your name fighting against Obamacare, and you now are going to sign up to get your insurance through that very process, Obamacare.

CRUZ: Listen, it was the case before Obamacare that federal employees could get health insurance through their jobs. That's not a new development, so, yes, I'll get my insurance through my job like millions of other Americans.

RUSH: But she is outraged at that. She thinks he's a hypocrite. And so she continued.

CRUZ: We will follow the text of the law --

BASH: That means you are gonna take a government subsidy?

CRUZ: I believe we should follow the text of the law.

BASH: The law that you want to repeal?

CRUZ: Yes. No, I -- I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with.

RUSH: Yeah. So Snerdley, let me ask you, what did you think? When you first heard that Ted Cruz was signing up for Obamacare -- tell me the truth now -- what was your gut, your first gut reaction? (interruption) You laughed? It was hysterically funny? Why did you think it was hysterically funny that Ted Cruz was signing up for Obamacare? (interruption) Oh, you think it was brilliant that he signed up for Obamacare. (interruption) Hmm. (laughing)

Okay, so Snerdley's theory is that if he's ever elected and the day comes where he authors the repeal of Obamacare, he can do it and say, "Hey, I signed up for this boondoggle. I'm like everybody else, I was forced to sign up for this POS and I've done it and now I'm getting rid of it." So you think it's a brilliant, brilliant move.
...
You know, I tell you what. If "it's better than nothing" is the new selling point for Obamacare, I think a bunch of people ought to pick up on it. Can you imagine Taco Bell saying, "Hey, it's better than nothing." McDonald's: "Hey, you may not think it's the best food, but it's better than nothing." If this has become the new selling point for Obamacare, "it's better than nothing"? What a standard. What a plunge this lofty law has experienced.

And isn't it fascinating, here's Ted Cruz, we've got a law in this country, you have to have health insurance. And you have to have some form of it approved by Obamacare. He's gone out, he has obeyed the law, and the Drive-Bys think he's being a hypocrite. He said, "I obey, you have to try to obey the text of every law." Now, compare that to Obama, who's doing everything he can to avoid laws he doesn't like. We're 180 degrees out of phase. A guy who says he's following the law of the land is mocked and ridiculed, and the people who swerve and weave their way around the law are applauded and supported and encouraged, such as Obama and take your pick of any of them.
...
What do you think the Drive-Bys would have done if Ted Cruz had opted not to insure his family, had gone the fine route? They'd call him a dangerous lunatic. They'd call him a monster. They'd call him selfish if he decided not to insure his family.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/25/drive_bys_go_batty_over_ted_cruz_signing_up_for_obamacare
I wouldn't think that simply because the fucker likely has enough money to afford to pay the full price of healthcare for his family out-of-pocket and not be saddled with crippling debt.

From a couple days ago, but I think it's amusing to pair this rant with the above

quote:

...How many people do you hear running around, "I know my rights! I know my rights!" and what they really mean, "I know what I'm entitled to. I know what I'm entitled to. I know what I get." People don't have the slightest literal -- and it's unfortunate, but it's gotten to the point where a discussion of what is a right and what isn't is considered too esoteric. It's considered too nuanced.

There is no right to equal income. There's no right to an income, period. There's no right to a living. There's no right to food. There's no right to water. There's no right to health care. There is no right to health care. There never was and there isn't now. If it's a right, it ought to just be there. You shouldn't have to go get it. You certainly shouldn't have to pay for it. How much do you pay for your freedom? Ah, the uniformed military people might pay for you. How much are you paying for your freedom? How much are you paying for your life, your right to live, the fact that you're alive, who do you go to every day to pay to stay alive?

And you get up, you want to be happy, what counter do you go and give 'em your credit card and say, "I'm here to get my happiness for the day." Where do you go do that? Same place you go to get your food, right? "Here's my right to food, give me my food. I have a right to water, give me my Evian. I have a right to a house. I have a right to shelter. I have a right to abort my baby. I have a right," whatever it is. People start throwing the word around in ways that -- no justification whatsoever, but you can't tell 'em, cannot tell 'em.

When you tell 'em that everything they think they have a right to, they don't, they become afraid of you like they're afraid of Ted Cruz, and they think you're gonna start taking things away from 'em. And that would mean Washington not working. (laughing) "And we can't elect people that are gonna take things away from me. I have my rights!" Well, it is what it is.

I'm sure people who are of the same educational standing as Meredith Shiner listening to me now think I don't know what I'm talking about and I am literally full of it and may even be dangerous. "Today I heard this guy on the radio saying, 'Where do you go to buy your happiness?' Do you believe that? This guy said there's no right to shelter. I don't have a right to food? I drat well do!" Really? You have a right to food? Who gave you that right? Where'd you go to get it? Where'd you hear about the right to eat? "Well, well, I just have it."

"No, you don't. You don't have a right to eat. You don't have to eat if you don't want to. Nobody can make you eat."

"But I have to."

"That's right, you have to. You can't live without eating. It's not a right."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/24/yahoo_news_political_reporter_displays_stupefying_ignorance

# ? Mar 26, 2015 06:58

InequalityGodzilla: May 31, 2012

I love that Limbaugh mentions he had a cover story in Time saying he was bad for democracy.

20 years ago.

As though that's highly relevant.

Back when I was literally being potty trained. And when he was slightly less of a pill popping fatass.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 08:35

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

FuzzySkinner posted:

Well on a related note, do you feel that those planks have pushed a lot of business friendly types away?

It feels like the libertarian movement and the democratic party have both picked up steam in that regard.

The business types will hitch their cart to whatever horse ends up getting elected and governing. If the GOP becomes unelectable because their social positions are repugnant to the American population at large, then the business types will drop the GOP like a rock and switch to backing centrist/business Democrats. It's already happening, see Rahm vs Chuy in Chicago. The GOP is unelectable, so the Democrats step in to fill the vacancy in pro-business candidates

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Mar 26, 2015

# ? Mar 26, 2015 11:32

Cognac McCarthy: Oct 5, 2008; It's a man's game, but boys will play

kik2dagroin posted:

How much are you paying for your freedom?

Freedom isn't free, Rush. :smug:

# ? Mar 26, 2015 12:14

Angry Salami: Jul 27, 2013; Don't trust the skull.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Huh. I did not know that. Guess there were good Confederates.

The Cherokee also owned hundreds of slaves and had established their own plantations. There's still an ongoing controversy over the Cherokee Nation's attempts to restrict the tribal membership of the decendants of black Cherokee slaves... so, yeah. Cherokee had just as much of a stake in the slave system as white Southerners.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 12:31

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Oh yeah I forgot to mention motive (3)

# ? Mar 26, 2015 12:36

robotsinmyhead: Nov 29, 2005; Dude, they oughta call you Piledriver!; Clever Betty

This Indiana Religious Freedom bill has pretty much tied up my Facebook feed for days. I keep my little hugbox/echo chamber fairly free of hardcore religious people, but they have a way of wriggling into the cracks and starting dumb arguments based on shaky premises.

I'm in Indiana and have a fair number of friends in the GenCon loop - I've been there a few times - and watching this unfold is pretty terrible. Mike Pence is trying to make a run at the presidency and he thinks this will look good on his record.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 12:37

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

Deep Hurting posted:

Con-serv-a-tive cool gu-uuy...

Some days I miss the CAD edit threads.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 13:35

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

FuzzySkinner posted:

Well on a related note, do you feel that those planks have pushed a lot of business friendly types away?

It feels like the libertarian movement and the democratic party have both picked up steam in that regard.

Sort of? Most business friendly types are still getting what they want, if you mean the bigger businesses and the people who run them. The ideologues are only hurting them when it comes to immigration, and in some states/sectors, education. There's also a rift between the established lobbying sectors and newer industries (like the recent telecoms v tech dust up).

Yeah Indiana would rather not lose a yearly convention but that convention wasn't donating to their reelection campaign or anything.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 14:08

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

PupsOfWar posted:

The GoP knows they have to ditch the religious-right and the apocalypse cultists and start relying purely on gently caress-the-poor sentiment, which is why they are now pretending to tolerate libertarians.

they just have not figured out how to execute this yet.

I don't know, they need to ditch them for a chance at the presidency, but it would kill them locally. I'm actually kind of interested, if the Republicans successfully ditch the religious right who do they vote for? Do we see a third party spring up on a state level in the south? It isn't like the Democrats, independents or greens want them.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 14:11

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

I don't know, they need to ditch them for a chance at the presidency, but it would kill them locally. I'm actually kind of interested, if the Republicans successfully ditch the religious right who do they vote for? Do we see a third party spring up on a state level in the south? It isn't like the Democrats, independents or greens want them.

The Religious Left might have a minor resurgence if there are fewer preachers whipping people into a republican-voting frenzy over gay marriage and abortion and whatever dogwhistle things they care about this week. I'm not saying it'll ever be what it was in, say, the 1930s, but you might see some small but appreciable number of people go "hey wait this is also about helping the Needy".

I do think the Religious Right is more willing to mount third-party protest campaigns than the teabaggers are. It's built around single-issue voters moreso than team identity politics.

But for the most part I think they'll just keep voting republican with diminished turnout, donations and GOTV effort.

Rand Paul's senate reelection may be an interesting test case, provided he tries to polish his libertarian bona fides during his presidential run. Check back in a year and a half to see whether Kentucky churchmen are defecting to whatever conservative anti-drug, gay-marriage-and-abortion-neutral democrat the state party puts up to oppose him. That'll give you some idea of how the religious right might respond to a libertarianized republican party.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 14:51

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

Glenn Beck is going to have Grover Norquist on his show tonight and drop the paywall for it. That should be a glorious poo poo show

# ? Mar 26, 2015 15:12

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

Given how the religious right has been galvanized, I imagine it is like us on d&d. Outside of some specialty markets like Seattle, who are we going to vote for? They are as much prisoners of the establishment as we are, look at roe v wade and how that isn't going anywhere.

However, the religious right is very effective at voting in primaries, so I don't see them going anywhere even if the establishment wants it.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 15:19

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

Good Citizen posted:

Glenn Beck is going to have Grover Norquist on his show tonight and drop the paywall for it. That should be a glorious poo poo show

I am stoked for this. Beck sounds like he's closer than ever to having a nervous breakdown on air.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 15:24

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

Deep Hurting posted:

Con-serv-a-tive cool gu-uuy...

What is this even supposed to mean? "I watched 9/11 happen on TV (along with the rest of the loving country)?" What a patriot.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 15:50

Takoluka: Jun 26, 2009; Don't look at me!

BiggerBoat posted:

What is this even supposed to mean? "I watched 9/11 happen on TV (along with the rest of the loving country)?" What a patriot.

I was watching 9/11 on the TV, when I saw something in the screen's reflection... It was me!

# ? Mar 26, 2015 16:26

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

There's a little 9/11 inside all of us.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 17:05

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Crowsbeak posted:

Some even became martyrs for the cause of freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Parsons

Well sure they did, every man who died for the Confederacy is a martyr for the cause of freedom.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 17:09

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

robotsinmyhead posted:

This Indiana Religious Freedom bill has pretty much tied up my Facebook feed for days. I keep my little hugbox/echo chamber fairly free of hardcore religious people, but they have a way of wriggling into the cracks and starting dumb arguments based on shaky premises.

I'm in Indiana and have a fair number of friends in the GenCon loop - I've been there a few times - and watching this unfold is pretty terrible. Mike Pence is trying to make a run at the presidency and he thinks this will look good on his record.

I keep that poo poo out of my circle mostly too but my fiancee has a friend from Highschool who's into pity partying for Christ on FB. She showed me one of them recently where he posted about how much he hates a freedom from religion commercial he saw on youtube. I'd never met or seen the guy before (or his FB page) but just based on the post I told her "I bet he's about to write a novel about how evangelical christian americans are the most persecuted people in the nation".

Turned out I was wrong, him and his wife took turns writing the novel about evangelical christians being the most persecuted people in the nation. Highlights included a stop over in abortionland, the requisite explaining away of what freedom of religion means (he went with the classic "it means you're free to be a christian and free to make everyone else beholden to christians"), declaration that no one but christians have morals, and an assertion that Satan himself was behind the video.

It was pretty cool.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:06

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

robotsinmyhead posted:

This Indiana Religious Freedom bill has pretty much tied up my Facebook feed for days. I keep my little hugbox/echo chamber fairly free of hardcore religious people, but they have a way of wriggling into the cracks and starting dumb arguments based on shaky premises.

I'm in Indiana and have a fair number of friends in the GenCon loop - I've been there a few times - and watching this unfold is pretty terrible. Mike Pence is trying to make a run at the presidency and he thinks this will look good on his record.

A friend on social media is going on about this. He's actually a republican and voted for the guy. He's just disgusted as we all are about this, which speaks volumes as to how badly this guy hosed up.

(he called it "racism in a different form").

It just feels like a lot of Millennial and Generation X'ers are getting tired of this crap as a whole. Sure you have guys like Caiden Cowger, Crowder and Chuck C Johnson, but I believe those are the true exception to the rule. Even a lot of "college republicans" are sounding way more tolerant than those on the party line. The overall feeling ranges from "Who cares? They're gay. Let them be gay" to "I have gay friends. The government has no place to say such a thing. why are we letting them?"

that's kind of the nice thing about most people (and hosed up thing about the two party system). They're not Ayn Rand Idealogues, or people who misquote scriptures to justify power grabs. They are people.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:08

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

Intel&Sebastian posted:

I keep that poo poo out of my circle mostly too but my fiancee has a friend from Highschool who's into pity partying for Christ on FB. She showed me one of them recently where he posted about how much he hates a freedom from religion commercial he saw on youtube. I'd never met or seen the guy before (or his FB page) but just based on the post I told her "I bet he's about to write a novel about how evangelical christian americans are the most persecuted people in the nation".

Turned out I was wrong, him and his wife took turns writing the novel about evangelical christians being the most persecuted people in the nation. Highlights included a stop over in abortionland, the requisite explaining away of what freedom of religion means (he went with the classic "it means you're free to be a christian and free to make everyone else beholden to christians"), declaration that no one but christians have morals, and an assertion that Satan himself was behind the video.

It was pretty cool.

is abortionland america's 51st state in this dystopian nightmare world

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:10

Intel&Sebastian: Oct 20, 2002; colonel...
i'm trying to sneak around
but i'm dummy thicc
and the clap of my ass cheeks
keeps alerting the guards!

PupsOfWar posted:

is abortionland america's 51st state in this dystopian nightmare world

Life begins at conception so technically now that you've thought of it: yes, It is.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:13

StealthArcher: Jan 10, 2010

PupsOfWar posted:

is abortionland america's 51st state in this dystopian nightmare world

The Onion-Planned Parenthood Joint Owned "AbortionPlex 5000 DX" sits atop a thin lined district of independent statehood, narrowly beating out Puerto Rico.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:14

Happy Noodle Boy: Jul 3, 2002

PupsOfWar posted:

is abortionland america's 51st state in this dystopian nightmare world

This is why Puerto Rico isn't a state, isn't it?

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:23

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

This is why Puerto Rico isn't a state, isn't it?

Nope. They held a non-binding referendum in 2012 to begin the process of joining as a state and the vote came out in favor. Both parties (R/D) are in favor of statehood so long as the people of Puerto Rico vote to join, and Obama signed a law last year to provide funds for their "real" referendum. It might actually happen: http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2374118_u-s-approves-funds-for-referendum-on-puerto-rico-s-status.html

# ? Mar 26, 2015 18:48

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

GenCon's not the only thing threatening to pull out of Indiana.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/03/26/indiana-gov-pence-set-to-sign-religious-objections-bill

It's a pretty expensive bill if any of the entities threatening to leave actually go through with it.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 19:06

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

But think of all the corporations that will move to Indiana now that they can discriminate! It will obviously be a huge boon for the economy in the end!

# ? Mar 26, 2015 19:13

FuzzySkinner: May 23, 2012

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/25/attention-parents-what-spring-break-really-looks

Hey guys...did you know that people do drugs, have sex and drink on spring break?! Man Sean Hannity really ripped the lid off this one! Really good investigative reporting...makes woodward and bernstein look like columnists in the "lifestyle" section!

..

Seriously, the best part is the Fox News faithful in the comment section all making fun of how dumb this is. The video itself almost seems like parody, like something that Colbert or Stewart would do.

e: Holy Hell, these people are terrible

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gavin-mcinnes-women-are-weak-hannity-spring-break

quote:

McInnes argued that liberals who promote gender equality have made women who choose to go on spring break "more vulnerable."

"I think this is a perfect example of liberals' cognitive dissonance where they say 'Everything's cool. Hey, it's spring break. People party. Women are the same as men,'" McInnes said. "When you have that stupid lie in your mind you end up making women more vulnerable. These women are not as strong as men."

"When you let them go down there, you're a terrible parent," he added. "If you let your son go down there, you're a fairly bad parent. But sons are different than daughters."

Hannity later asked McInnes whether that was a double standard.

"Of course it is," he responded. "We're different. Sorry. Equality is a myth."

Ainsley Earhardt, who traveled to Panama City, Fla. to film the spring break expose for "Hannity," told McInnes his take was "archaic."

"You're making women less safe," McInnes shouted over Earhardt. "That attitude makes women less safe when you say 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls, they're all the same.'"

"Right, boys sometimes can be worse than girls because boys are lustful," Earhardt said. "Boys will do things that they shouldn't be doing that they get away with because they don't get a reputation like a woman. That's not fair."

"Right, so drill that into your daughter and say 'You're weak. You're vulnerable. You're not a superhero. You're in danger,'" McInnes said.

Clearly little progress has been made since last year's "Hannity" spring break investigation, when McInnes and Earhardt got into the exact same argument.

"The women [on spring break] are human garbage whose parents don't love them," McInnes said on the 2014 "Hannity" panel.

FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 26, 2015

# ? Mar 26, 2015 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 06:28

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Right Wing Media: Human garbage whose parents don't love them.

# ? Mar 26, 2015 19:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Right Wing Media: congratulations Rush Limbaugh on three full years of sobriety!

«‹›3443 »